Four senior university administrators have pushed back against a recent rejoinder on the controversial Market Premium arrangements for Teaching and Non-Teaching Senior Members in public universities, insisting that the debate should focus on evidence-based pay equity rather than occupational hierarchy.
The authors — Patrice Dzontoh, Michael Osei Owusu, Confidence Kakraba and Cynthia Ameyaa Oduro — said they recognised the differences between teaching and non-teaching careers but maintained that such differences did not, by themselves, establish that one category was institutionally more valuable than the other.
They said their earlier article, titled “Pay Equity in Public Universities: The Case Against the Approved Market Premium,” was not an attack on Teaching Senior Members or a demand for identical remuneration.
Rather, they said, their concern was about the process, structure and consequences of the current Market Premium arrangement, particularly the treatment of allowances and other remuneration components within the revised compensation framework.
They argued that any substantial difference in remuneration between occupational groups within the same public university system should be supported by objective job evaluation, labour-market evidence, recruitment and retention considerations and other transparent criteria.
Different work, common institutional value
Responding to the rejoinder, “Analogy is Not Equality: Why Distinct University Careers Require Distinctly Negotiated Compensation,” the authors agreed that Teaching and Non-Teaching Senior Members performed different functions and had different qualifications, career pathways, promotion requirements and working arrangements.
However, they said those differences should not automatically be interpreted as evidence of unequal institutional worth.
They stressed that public universities function as complex ecosystems in which teaching and research depend on a wide range of professional and administrative services.
They cited administration, finance, internal audit, procurement, information and communication technology, human resources, legal services, quality assurance, planning, infrastructure, library services and research administration as some of the critical functions supporting the academic mission of universities.
According to them, “difference may justify appropriate differentiation,” but such differentiation should not be transformed into an unsupported hierarchy of institutional value.
Not demanding identical pay
The four authors said their position was not that Teaching and Non-Teaching Senior Members should necessarily receive identical remuneration.
Instead, they were calling for a remuneration system in which differences were rational, relevant, evidence-based and transparent.
They said factors such as qualifications, responsibilities, scarcity of skills, recruitment and retention pressures, professional risks, working conditions, career burdens and labour-market conditions could legitimately influence compensation.
“The question is not, ‘Why are Teaching and Non-Teaching Senior Members paid differently?’” they stated.
“The question is, ‘What objective and evidence-based methodology justifies the magnitude and direction of the difference?’”
They maintained that the answer should come from a proper compensation and job-evaluation framework rather than assumptions about the relative importance of the two career streams.
Call for evidence
The authors referred to the mandate of the Fair Wages and Salaries Commission (FWSC) under the Fair Wages and Salaries Commission Act, 2007 (Act 737), particularly its responsibilities relating to job analysis, job evaluation, grading and classification, allowances, benefits and salary structures.
They argued that if the current Market Premium differential was justified by job evaluation, labour-market pressures or recruitment and retention challenges, the evidence should be made available.
They also called for a comparison of the complete remuneration packages of the two occupational streams instead of examining Market Premium in isolation.
According to them, this was necessary to determine whether the overall compensation structure remained internally coherent.
2012 arbitration award
A major part of their response concerned the 2012 arrangement involving the Ghana Association of University Administrators (GAUA).
The authors rejected what they described as an attempt to portray the 2012 relationship as merely an “old analogy” or an informal extension of benefits obtained by the University Teachers Association of Ghana (UTAG).
They pointed to a voluntary arbitration award dated December 17, 2012, involving the FWSC and GAUA, under which an interim Market Premium factor of 1.14, or 114 per cent, was applied to GAUA members.
They said the Arbitration Panel had explained that the arrangement was intended to maintain existing university relativities during migration to the Single Spine Salary Structure and promote industrial relations harmony.
They were, however, careful to acknowledge that the award did not establish permanent salary identity between occupational groups.
Rather, they said, the historical arrangement constituted a formal migration-related baseline, while subsequent differentiation should be supported by the applicable evidence-based framework.
They further noted that the 2012 Arbitration Panel had observed that the job-evaluation process had been truncated.
Consequently, they argued that the historical 114 per cent arrangement should neither be treated as a permanent entitlement nor dismissed as a meaningless analogy.
Government’s broader responsibility
The authors acknowledged the right of UTAG to negotiate improved conditions for its members.
However, they said Government, as the employer responsible for the public university system, also had a duty to consider the system-wide implications of separate collective bargaining outcomes.
They explained that an agreement reached with one occupational group could affect internal relativities among other categories working within the same institution.
They therefore called on Government to examine the cumulative impact of different compensation arrangements without necessarily withdrawing benefits legitimately negotiated by any union.
Responsibility allowances
The authors also responded to arguments concerning benefits attached to senior administrative offices.
They said allowances and benefits attached to positions such as Vice-Chancellor, Pro-Vice-Chancellor, Dean, Director, Head of Department, Registrar and Finance Director should not be confused with occupational-stream benefits.
According to them, such benefits arise primarily from the office occupied.
They therefore argued that a proper comparison should distinguish between benefits attached to an occupational category and benefits attached to specific institutional responsibilities.
Qualifications versus experience
The response also addressed the debate over academic qualifications and professional experience.
The authors said qualifications and experience were different forms of human capital and that a sound remuneration system should recognise both where relevant.
They acknowledged the demanding nature of academic promotion, including research publication, teaching, supervision, external assessment and community service.
However, they argued that describing those requirements did not, on its own, establish the appropriate Market Premium.
They maintained that the key consideration for a substantive Market Premium should include whether the relevant skills were critical and in short supply, as well as the recruitment and retention challenges facing the employer.
They therefore called for evidence demonstrating the labour-market conditions and other factors used to determine the current premium and its magnitude.
Hospital analogy
The authors also challenged the use of the hospital analogy to establish occupational superiority.
They agreed that medical officers, nurses, pharmacists, administrators, accountants, laboratory scientists and engineers performed different functions and might legitimately have different remuneration.
However, they said the existence of such differences did not make one profession inherently superior to another.
They said the more appropriate lesson from the hospital analogy was professional complementarity rather than occupational hierarchy.
They argued that the same principle applied to universities, where different professionals contributed specialised expertise to a common institutional mission.
Working beyond normal hours
The authors further rejected the suggestion that the demanding nature of academic work should be viewed in isolation.
They acknowledged that lecturers and other Teaching Senior Members often worked beyond classroom hours through research, publication, supervision, marking, examinations, conferences, community service and academic administration.
However, they said Non-Teaching Senior Members also worked beyond normal hours when institutional demands required it.
They cited admissions, examinations, payroll, procurement, infrastructure, ICT, accreditation, graduation, institutional reporting and other university activities as responsibilities that could require work during evenings, weekends and public holidays.
They said the different working arrangements of the two groups reflected the nature of their respective responsibilities and should not be used to diminish either category.
Research depends on wider system
The authors also emphasised that academic research and community service did not operate independently of university administrative systems.
They said research projects required research administration, finance, procurement, ICT, legal services, quality assurance, ethics processes, institutional approvals and reporting.
They stressed that recognising these supporting functions did not diminish the contribution of academics but instead highlighted the collective nature of university achievement.
OTSA and Market Premium
The Online Teaching Support Allowance (OTSA) was identified as another important area requiring clarification.
The authors said they did not claim that Non-Teaching Senior Members performed the same online teaching functions as academic staff.
Their concern, they explained, was the policy treatment of the allowance and whether an allowance introduced under particular circumstances should subsequently become part of a permanent Market Premium structure without a comprehensive assessment of its wider implications.
They called for the relevant agreements and implementation documents to clarify the original purpose and status of OTSA, including the Government and internally generated funds components and precisely which elements were incorporated into the revised framework.
Until such evidence was disclosed, they said, neither side should treat assumptions about the conversion of OTSA as established fact.
Market Premium is not basic salary
The authors further stressed that Market Premium should not be confused with basic salary.
They said the current debate should not be framed as though Government had simply increased the basic salaries of Teaching Senior Members while leaving Non-Teaching Senior Members behind.
They argued that Market Premium was a component of the wider public-sector compensation architecture and could be influenced by labour-market pressures, critical skills, recruitment and retention challenges and other factors.
They again cited the distinction made in the 2012 arbitration between an Interim Market Premium, which was linked to the migration to the Single Spine Salary Structure, and a substantive Market Premium intended to address critical skills in short supply.
They said this distinction was important because a substantive Market Premium should not automatically apply indiscriminately across an entire occupational classification.
Equal pay clarification
The authors also clarified their interpretation of the equal-pay principle under Section 68 of the Labour Act, 2003 (Act 651).
They said they did not interpret the provision as requiring Teaching and Non-Teaching Senior Members to receive identical remuneration.
Their argument, they explained, was that where different pay levels existed for different occupational groups, the basis for the differences should be rational, relevant, evidence-based and transparent.
Five-point proposal
The authors have consequently proposed five practical measures to address the controversy.
They are calling for:
A comprehensive review of the revised Market Premium structure for Teaching and Non-Teaching Senior Members.
A comparison of complete remuneration packages, rather than Market Premium alone.
Disclosure of the methodology and evidence supporting the current differentials, including job evaluation, labour-market considerations and recruitment and retention evidence.
Completion or updating of comparative job evaluation, particularly in light of the truncated process noted by the 2012 Arbitration Panel.
Proportionate corrective measures where disparities cannot be objectively justified.
“Not a contest”
The authors said the matter should not become a contest between Teaching and Non-Teaching Senior Members.
They said they did not seek the withdrawal of benefits granted to academic staff and did not question the importance of teaching, research and scholarship.
Rather, they wanted the contribution of administrators, accountants, lawyers, ICT professionals, planners, auditors, librarians, engineers, architects, procurement professionals, health professionals, quality assurance officers and other specialists to be reflected in a fair compensation structure.
They described the two groups as performing “different but complementary functions” within the same university ecosystem.
Call for technical review
The four senior university administrators have consequently called on Government and relevant institutions to subject the revised Market Premium framework to a technical review.
They specifically identified the Ministry of Finance, the Fair Wages and Salaries Commission, the Ghana Tertiary Education Commission and, when operational, the Independent Emoluments Commission as institutions that could provide the appropriate platform for the assessment.
They said such a review would protect all sides because if the existing differential was justified, the evidence would establish it, while any required adjustment would also have a principled basis.
They concluded that their objective was not to prevail over Teaching Senior Members but to ensure that no category of university workers was treated unfairly.
“Difference should produce fairness, not division,” they stated, adding that analogy did not amount to equality, just as difference did not amount to superiority.
The authors are Patrice Dzontoh, Senior Assistant Registrar, University of Environment and Sustainable Development and member of GAUA; Michael Osei Owusu, Senior Accountant, Ghana Communication Technology University and GAUA member; Confidence Kakraba, Senior Assistant Registrar, Ho Technical University and member of TUSAAG; and Cynthia Ameyaa Oduro, Senior Assistant Registrar, University of Environment and Sustainable Development and GAUA member.
